Noting states of a transcription project

Looking through the video projects wiki, I noticed there wasn't consistency in marking when a particular stage had been completed - some stages were marked as "done" or "ongoing" while others had nothing at all next to names before the next "TBA" section, so I just had to check through the forum thread for each one until I came across one that was open to its next stage.

Labels like "done" and "on going" or "in progress" seem to be fine, but can we try and stay more consistent in applying them?

Nice remark 4ndy!
It is almost only me who updates the wiki. Some vlunteers do to. I am ading only "(on going)" and when I remove it is because it is done. Some people might be adding "(done)" to it, and that is why most of them are done but only a few say so.

We can remove the few "done"s I guess, so that others wont be confused. Less time and energy spent. What do you think?

"Done" provides a definite answer to the question of "What state is this one in right now?",
so I would suggest adding 'Done' to those that are, in fact, done.
We simply can't predict what a blank might allow people to project onto the status of an item there.

...or when one of the earlier stages is completed, the next stage open could be set as "Pending (stage)" until someone takes it up, like the practice with the final review column, instead of being left as "TBA". That might give as clear a signal as 'done' that a piece of work is open to its next stage.
@Ray If by "so I would suggest adding 'Done' to those that are, in fact, done." you mean only use that word after a final review, that might be even more helpful to do in addition to this.

Ok. So we add "done" when someone posts on the forum saying they are done with it + "pending" on the next column, and the ones with just their names mean that they are on going;or should we put "on going" on those too? What I think is important is to have it on a way that seems very obvious, because I notice that many newbies tend to start editing the wiki table in their own way - probably meaning that they didn't identify the pattern that was there before. So, adding the "status" in all of them might be the best?